South Africa Case Law

Mnisi and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOCS Limited and Others (JS 126/2019)

Mnisi and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOCS Limited and Others (JS 126/2019) [2023] ZALCJHB 178; [2023] 9 BLLR 950 (LC); (2023) 44 ILJ 1977 (LC) (9 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 126/2019

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court dismissed claims by dismissed SABC employees who alleged contractual breaches, unlawful use of medical claims data, and lack of authority to dismiss.

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Disciplinary Code Interpretation
• Right To Hearing
• Confidential Medical Information
• Authority To Dismiss
• Specific Performance

Ndoyana v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (CA581/2019)

Ndoyana v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (CA581/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 74 (12 November 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

CA581/2019

Judge

Rugunanan

The court held that the authority to impose a dismissal sanction against a senior manager appointed in terms of section 56 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act resides with the presiding officer of the disciplinary hearing, not the Municipal Council or City Manager. The Regulations distinguish between the roles of 'municipality' and 'municipal council', and the responsibility for implementing the sanction is placed on the municipality, which may act through its administrative structures and delegated powers. The applicant's argument that only the Council could dismiss him was reject…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Regulations For Senior Managers
• Municipal Structures Act
• Contractual Termination
• Authority To Dismiss
• Declaratory Relief
• Costs Orders

Wasa v KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority and Others (J1374/2012)

Wasa v KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority and Others (J1374/2012) [2014] ZALCJHB 226 (25 June 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1374/2012

Judge

Baloyi

The court found that the disciplinary process and dismissal of the applicant were not properly authorized by the Board of the First Respondent. The HR & Admin Manager, a subordinate, lacked delegated authority to institute disciplinary action, and there was no evidence of proper Board ratification or delegation to the Third Respondent. The round-robin approval method was not sanctioned by the applicable statutes or Board rules, and the evidence of Board approval was insufficient and inconsistent. The forensic investigation report relied upon was hearsay and not substantiated by witness testim…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Termination
• Fixed Term Contract
• Authority To Dismiss
• Damages For Breach
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Mitigation Of Loss

Public and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Avontuur and Others (C100/2009)

Public and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v Avontuur and Others (C100/2009) [2010] ZALC 225 (18 April 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C100/2009

Judge

Cheadle

The Labour Court refused to rescind a default judgment, finding the union’s failure to defend was grossly negligent and that no sufficient prima facie defence was shown.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Retrenchment
• Section 189 Consultation
• Gross Negligence
• Authority To Dismiss
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Public And Allied Workers Union Of South Africa v Avontour and Others (C100/2009)

Public And Allied Workers Union Of South Africa v Avontour and Others (C100/2009) [2010] ZALCCT 7 (18 February 2010)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C100/2009

Judge

Cheadle

The Labour Court refused to rescind a default judgment, finding no satisfactory explanation for the union’s failure to defend and no error in identifying the affected employees.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189 Consultation
• Gross Negligence
• Authority To Dismiss
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Tshavhungwa v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (42117/06)

Tshavhungwa v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (42117/06) [2008] ZAGPHC 412 (12 March 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

42117/06

Judge

Mavundla

The court held that only the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development had the statutory authority to terminate the applicant's employment as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. The termination effected by EXCO and the first and third respondents was unlawful and invalid, as there was no legislative framework authorizing them to do so. However, the application for review was brought outside the 180-day period prescribed by section 7 of PAJA, and no application for condonation was made. The applicant, being a legally trained person, failed to act with reasonable promptness after h…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Termination Of Public Service Employment
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion
• Unreasonable Delay
• Authority To Dismiss

Langlois v Teraoka SA (Pty) Limited (J121/01)

Langlois v Teraoka SA (Pty) Limited (J121/01) [2001] ZALC 226 (19 December 2001)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J121/01

Judge

E Revelas

The Labour Court refused leave to appeal against an urgent interdict, holding the dispute had become academic and that costs alone could not justify appeal.

• Urgent Interdict
• Leave To Appeal
• Authority To Dismiss
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-appeal
• Academic-dispute